There is NO single payor system that compensates physicians on health outcomes. None. There are a bunch that pay for ticking boxes (e.g. did you talk about smoking cessation, did you talk about weight loss, etc.) But not a damn one pays based on outcomes. Why you ask? Because as sure as the sun rises I and every other general surgeon would IMMEDIATELY stop operating on 1. smokers, 2. the obese, and 3 diabetics on an elective basis. They talk a big game, but every time someone points that out to the powers that be they back down. Hell, even REPORTING outcomes has caused a drop in elective CABGs in NY, a rise in emergent ones and worse outcomes across the board.

William Bromberg, in a comment here. I don’t know if that’s completely true, but I’m sure this fundamental problem is in no way limited to surgery even if that’s probably (one of?) the field(s?) where such a change in incentives structures would have the highest impact; in general, if you compensate doctors based on whether the patients get better or not, then it gets harder to get (/enough) doctors to treat the risky cases and/or the very sick.

Rate this:

About me/this blog

I am a student of economics from Denmark.

This blog is mainly a site where I keep track of and share some of the stuff I read and learn. Only a small subset of the posts on this blog deal with economics – I have diverse interests, and as the category cloud in the sidebar below illustrates this blog contains posts about all kinds of stuff: Mathematics, physics, statistics, geology, geography, health care and medicine, psychology, evolutionary biology, genetics, history, anthropology, archaeology, chess, …

You’re always welcome to ask questions in the comment section. New readers should be aware that the first comment someone leaves on this blog is always withheld automatically to limit spam and needs to be approved by me before it appears on the site; so your first question or comment may not appear immediately.